Legal Reasoning Flashcards
Astha, who is a very good painter, is also a patient in a mental asylum, who, at intervals, is of sound mind. During one of these intervals, she entered into a relationship with Lopamudra to paint a picture of her for a specified amount. She, however, asked Lopamudra to pay her the entire amount in advance. One month later, on the day of delivery of the painting, Astha refused to perform the contract saying that she suffers from insanity. Can Lopamudra force performance?
Principle: A person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgment as to its effect upon his interests.
(a) Yes, because Astha was of sound mind when she entered into the contract.
(b) No, because Astha had been of unsound mind even while the contract was signed which is proved by the fact that she was admitted in an asylum.
(c) Yes, because a good painter can paint irrespective of his/her mental stability.
(d) No, because it was silly on Lopamudra’s part to enter into a contract with a mental patient admitted in an asylum.
(a) Yes, because Astha was of sound mind when she entered into the contract.
Principle: Mere silence as to the facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not a fraud, unless the circumstances of the case are such that, on close examination it is found to be the duty of the person keeping silent to speak, or unless his silence is, in itself, equivalent to speech.
Facts: X sells by auction to Y, a horse which X knows to be of unsound state of mind. X says nothing to Y about the horse’s unsound state of mind. Give the correct answer.
(a) X can be held liable for fraud.
(b) X can be held liable for misrepresentation.
(c) X cannot be held liable, because he did not say anything positive about the mental state of the horse.
(d) X cannot be held liable because it is the buyer who must be aware of the things.
(c) X cannot be held liable, because he did not say anything positive about the mental state of the horse.
Agni enters into a contract with Tanuj whereby Tanuj will supply Agni with 10 grams of cocaine for a specified amount. Is the contract void?
Principle: If the consideration or object of an agreement is forbidden by law, or is of such a nature that would defeat the provisions of any law, or is fraudulent, or is injurious to the person or property of another or, the Court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy, then the object or consideration shall be deemed unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void.
a. Yes, because the contract is for the sale of illegal drugs.
b. No, because Agni and Tanuj have entered into the contract out of their own free will, and being the citizens of a free country, they have the right to do so.
c. Yes, because drugs are harmful.
(d) None of these.
a. Yes, because the contract is for the sale of illegal drugs.
If the tax rate increases with the higher level of income, it is called –
(a) Progressive Tax (b) Proportional Tax (c) Lump sum Tax (d) Regressive Tax
(a) Progressive Tax
A fake doctor operated on a man for internal piles by cutting them out with an kitchen ordinary knife. The man died of haemorrhage.
(a) Doctor is guilty of murder
(b) Doctor is not guilty.
(c) Doctor is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder
(d) None of these.
C
Dr Mortimer performed a kidney operation upon James for removal of kidney stones. James was already affected by HIV. Dr Mortimer had warned James of all the possible risks. James, out of his own volition, decided to undertake the risks and signed a bond certifying the same. James died of haemorrhage as a result of the operation.
(a) Doctor is guilty of murder.
(b) Doctor is not guilty.
(c) Doctor is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder
(d) None of these.
B
Principle: Only Parliament or State Legislatures have the authority to enact laws on their own.
No law made by the State can take away a person’s fundamental right.
Facts: Parliament enacted a law, which according to a group of lawyers is violating the fundamental rights of traders. A group of lawyers files a writ petition challenging the Constitutional validity of the statute seeking relief to quash the statute and further direct Parliament to enact a new law.
(a) No writ would lie against Parliament, as the court has no authority to direct Parliament toenact or re-enact a law
(b) The court can quash existing law if it violates fundamental rights and can direct Parliament tomake a new law
(c) The court can quash the existing law if it violates fundamental rights but cannot direct
Parliament to make a new law
(d) None of these
C
Principle: When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that person to such an act or abstinence, he is said to have made a proposal.
Fact: “Ramanuj telegraphed to Shyam Sunder, writing: “Will you sell me your Rolls
Royce CAR? Telegram the lowest cash price.” Shyam Sunder also replied by telegram: “Lowest price for CAR is Rs. 20 lakh.” Ramanuj immediately sent his consent through telegram stating: “I agree to buy the CAR for Rs. 20 lakh asked by you.” Shyam Sunder refused to sell the car.
(a) He cannot refuse to sell the CAR because the contract has already been made.
(b) He can refuse to sell the CAR because it was only invitation to offer and not the real offer
(c) It was not a valid offer because willingness to enter into a contract was absent
(d) None of these
B
Principle: A person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgment as to its effect upon his interests.
Facts: Mr. X who is usually of sound state of mind, but occasionally of unsound state of mind, enters into a contract with Mr. Y when he was of unsound state of mind. Mr. Y having come to know about this fact afterwards, wants to file a suit against Mr. X.
(a) Mr. X cannot enter into contract because he is of unsound state of mind when he entered intocontract.
(b) Mr. X can enter into contract but the burden is on the other party to prove that he was ofunsound state of mind at the time of contract.
(c) Mr. X can enter into contract but the burden is on Mr. X to prove that he was of soundstate of mind at the time of contract.
C
Principle: Willful rash driving is an offense.
Facts: Mr. Tiwari was driving his car after drinking alcohol. Police books him for willful negligent driving. Is the act of the police lawful?
(a) No, because Mr. Tiwari was not driving rashly; he was drunk while driving.
(b) No, this is not a negligent act.
(c) Yes, because Mr. Tiwari was driving rashly.
(d) Yes, because the police has the power to arrest a person driving rashly.
A
Principle: Ignorance of Fact is excused but ignorance of law is no excuse.
Fact: X was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss Plane. When the plane landed at the Airport of Bombay on 28 Nov. 1962 it was found on searching that X carried 34 kg of Gold Bars on his person and that he had not declared it in the ‘Manifest for Transit’. On 26th Nov. 1962 the Government of India had issued a notification modifying its earlier exemption, making it mandatory now that the gold must be declared in the “Manifest” of the aircraft.
(a) X cannot be prosecuted because he had actually no knowledge about the new notificationissued two days ago
(b) X cannot be prosecuted because ignorance of fact is excusable
(c) X can be prosecuted because ignorance of law is not excusable
(d) X’s liability would depend on the discretion of the court
C
Principle: Any direct physical interference with goods in somebody’s possession without lawful justification is called trespass of goods.
Facts: Z purchased a car from a person who had no title to it and sent it to a garage for repair. X believing wrongly that the car was his, removed it from the garage.
(a) X cannot be held responsible for trespass of goods as he was under a wrong belief.
(b) X can be held responsible for trespass of goods (c) X has not committed any wrong.
(d) None of the above.
B
Principle: Mere silence as to the facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not a fraud, unless the circumstances of the case are such that, on close examination it is found to be the duty of the person keeping silent to speak, or unless his silence is, in itself, equivalent to speech.
Facts: X sells by auction to Y, a horse which X knows to be of unsound state of mind. X says nothing to Y about the horse’s unsound state of mind. Give the correct answer-
(a) X can be held liable for fraud
(b) X can be held liable for misrepresentation
(c) X cannot be held liable, because he did not say anything positive about the mental stateof the horse
(d) X cannot be held liable because it is the buyer who must be aware of the things
C
On 31st March 1976, FCRA was enacted with an aim to regulate the utilization of foreign contributions/hospitality by individuals, associations to keep it consistent with the values of a sovereign, democratic republic. The FCRA was enacted in 1976 in order to maintain strict control over voluntary organisations and political associations that received foreign fundings. In 1984, an amendment was made to the act requiring all the Non-Governmental Organisations to register themselves with the Home Ministry. In 2010, the act was repealed and a new act with strict provisions was enacted. FCRA 2010 is a consolidating act passed by the Government of India in the year 2010. It seeks to regulate foreign contributions or donations and hospitality (air travel, hotel accommodation etc) to Indian organizations and individuals and to stop such contributions which might damage the national interest. It is an act passed for regulating and prohibiting the acceptance and utilization of foreign contribution or foreign hospitality by companies, associations or individuals for such activities that could prove to be detrimental to the national interest and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Since the Act is internal security legislation, despite being a law related to financial legislation, it falls into the purview of the Home Ministry and not the Reserve Bank of India. The foreign inflow has almost doubled in the last decade, however, as per the government, the entities receiving the funds aren’t using it for the declared purpose. In FCRA 2020, only 20% of the foreign funds can be used for administrative purposes while the limit was 50% in FCRA 2010. This might hamper the workings of several small NGOs who depend on such funds. The new provisions aim to enhance transparency and accountability in the matter of foreign funds inflow and utilisation. The bill also makes the Aadhar number mandatory for recipients (passport or OCI card will be used as the identification document in case of foreigners).
- FCRA 2010 regulates:
A. Foreign Hospitality B. Foreign Contribution
C. Both A and B.
D. Neither: as they are regulated by FEMA
2. FCRA applies to: A. Whole of India B. Indian Citizens Outside India C. Branches of Indian Registered Co’s outside India D. All of these
1c
2d
Mr. Freeman of Delhi was gifted for his personal use, a pen worth 30,000/- by the organizers of the event which he was an invitee for: Is it a Foreign Contribution?
A. Yes, amount exceeds 25000/
B. Yes, contribution is made by a foreign source
C. No, is in nature of gift for personal use
D. No, as gift by a professional body not classified as foreign source
C
Which of these are Foreign Source:
A. Club exclusively made up of Indian Citizens, formed and registered outside India
B. Club exclusively made up of Indian Citizens, formed and registered inside India
C. Both a and b
D. Neither a nor b
A
Arnab, an editor of Never-ever Magazine, a bi-monthly registered publication magazine, with national circulation, took money from Foreign Source: Is this permissible u/s 3 of FCRA?
A. Yes, as it’s a magazine and not a registered newspaper
B. No, as no distinction is made between a Magazine or any other publication u/s 3 of FCRA
C. Yes, as it is not a daily issue and prohibition applies to daily issues only
D. No, as it is a nationally circulated magazine
A
In the instant case, the appealing party was a restricted organization. He was mainly in business of manufacturing and selling of sugars. On October 10th, 1968, a piece of news showed up expressing that the respondent-State of Uttar Pradesh had chosen to give exception from deals charge for a time of three years under Section 4-A, Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 to all new modern units in the State of Uttar Pradesh. On October 11th, 1968 the appealing party kept in touch with the Director of Industries expressing that taking into account the business charge occasion reported by the administration, the litigant wanted to set up a plant for the production of vanaspati and looked for affirmation of the exception. The Director of Industries affirmed the position. An affirmation to a similar impact was given by the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh. Taking into account these confirmations, the appealing party proceeded with the setting up of the processing plant. In May 1969, the State administration of Uttar Pradesh reconsidered on the topic of exclusion and mentioned the litigant to go to a gathering. At the gathering, the appealing party’s agent said that on the affirmation and assurance of the respondent (the legislature of Uttar Pradesh) the litigant had continued setting up the manufacturing plant. In this belief that the Government has exempted him from tax, he took a huge loan and started to work on it. However, after sometime, the Government gave a second thought to its tax exemption policy. It called for a meeting regarding this issue and called the petitioner to attend the meeting. Petitioner sent his representative to attend the meeting. The State Government of Uttar Pradesh, in any case, on January 20th, 1970, took a strategy choice that new vanaspati units which went into business creation by September 30th, 1970, would be given a fractional concession of deals charge. The litigant’s factor went into creation on July 2nd, 1970, yet the State Government indeed changed its arrangement, and on August 12th, 1970 suggested its choice to cancel the
concessions.
- Whether the plaintiff waived his right to have a cause of action by accepting partial exemption?
A. Government would be liable if the petitioner did not accept the concessional rates of tax. But he did waive his right to have a cause of action by accepting the partial exemption.
B. There can be no waiver of the rights unless the person who waived it has all information and knowledge about his right and waiver of the same. Waiver should be an intentional act with knowledge. There was no reason to believe that appellant was aware that his right would be waived due to partial exemption.
C. No, plaintiff didn’t waive his right to have a cause of action by accepting partial exemption.
D. Yes, plaintiff waived his right to have a cause of action by accepting partial exemption.
E. No writ petition can be entertained by court in this case - Whether the plaintiff can have a cause of action on the grounds of promissory estoppel?
A. Yes, in such cases contractual obligation is mandatory to bring a cause of action on the basis of promissory estopple.
B. There is no need for any contractual obligations before bringing a cause of action on the grounds of promissory estoppels. Action could be brought in those cases where no contractual obligation exists, but the same is intended for the future
C. No, Contractual obligation is not mandatory to bring a cause of action on the basis of promissory estopple.
D. This is depending on the discretion of the court - Whether any such action against the Government acting in governmental, sovereign or administrative capacity can lie?
A. No, Absolutely Not, where the element of sovereign function is present, one cannot sue the govt.
B. This doctrine would be applied against the Government, where it is necessary to prevent fraud and manifest justice. Where the Government owes a duty to the public to act differently, promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to prevent the Government from doing so.
C. Yes, such action against the Government acting in governmental, sovereign or administrative capacity can lie if it is permissible by the apex court.
D. Sovereign immunity of government is absolute and it cannot be challenge in any circumstance.
- Whether in the present case, the doctrine would be applicable because the plaintiff did not suffer any detriment?
A. To invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppels, it is not necessary for the promise to show that he suffered detriment as a result of acting in accordance with promise.
B. To invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppels, it is necessary for the promise to show that he suffered detriment as a result of acting in accordance with promise.
C. No, because it is always mandatory to suffer losses to invoke doctrine of promissory estopple.
D. This will be decided by the facts and circumstances and positions of parties to the case and it vary from case to case along with the discretion of the court.
10. Promissory estoppel is sometimes spoken of as a substitute for: A. Novation B. Quasi Contract C. Coercion D. Contract
6b 7b 8b 9a 10b
Passage 1:
Ralia Ram was one of its partners of a firm which dealt in bullion and other goods at Amritsar. It was duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act. On the 20th of September, 1947 Ralia Ram arrived at Meerut by the Frontier Mail to sell gold, silver, and other goods in the Meerut market. Whilst he was passing through the Chaupla Bazaar with this object, he was taken into custody by three police constables. His belongings were then searched and he was taken to the Kotwali Police Station. He was detained in the police lock-up there and his belongings were seized from him and kept in police custody. Then he was released on bail, and sometime thereafter the silver seized from him was returned to him. Ralia Ram made repeated demands for the return of the gold but he could not recover the gold from the police officers, he filed the present suit against the respondent in which he claimed a decree that the gold seized from him should either be returned to him or in the alternative, its value should be ordered to be paid to him. The gold in question had been taken into custody by one Mohammad Amir, who was then the Head Constable, and it had been kept in the police Malkhana under his charge. Mohd. Amir, however, misappropriated the gold and fled away to Pakistan soon thereafter. He had also misappropriated some other cash and articles deposited in the Malkhana before he left India. The respondent further alleged that a case under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code as well as s. 29 of the Police Act had been registered against Mohd. Amir, but he had not been apprehended. Alternatively, it was pleaded by the respondent that this was not a case of negligence of the police officers and that even if negligence was held proved against the said police officers, the respondent State could not be said to be liable for the loss resulting from such negligence.
1. Choose best available option:
A. State is responsible for the damage caused to Ralia Ram and must pay damages to him.
B. Constable Md. Amir is responsible as he done the act out of course of employment.
C. State is not responsible and will not pay the damages.
D. This is negligence on the part of Police department and department was acting under the state, so state is vicariously liable for the same.
E. Both State and Police department is liable for the damage caused to Ralia Ram.
C
The conductor invited passengers to travel on the roof of the bus. Because the bus was overloaded with passengers. To overtake a cart, the driver over turned the bus abruptly to right side of the road. As the driver turned on the kutcha portion of the road, a passenger names Tahir Sheikh, was hit by a branch of a tree and fell down from the bus and got seriously injured and later died. In an action by the bus driver, the mother of the deceased claimed compensation.
1. Choose best available option:
A. Absolute case of Volenti non fit injuria, no damages will be awarded.
B. Inevitable accident, as it is general trend in India to travel on the roof of bus.
C. Damages will be awarded after deducting the amount of contributory negligence.
D. Full damages will be awarded as it was the conductor who invited the passengers to travel on the roof of bus.
E. Full damages will be awarded as it was the conductor who invited the passengers to travel on the roof of bus and the driver who was driving negligently.
C
The working and management of college was carried by a society registered under Jammu and Kashmir Registration of Societies Act,1898. The Society is empowered by clause 3 sub- clause II of the Memorandum of Association to make rules for the conduct of the affairs of the Society and to, amend, them from time to time with the approval of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir and the Central Government. The college through a notice invited application for the B.E Course in various branches of Engineering. Petitioner applied for admission in the college. There were two sets of tests conducted Written Test and Viva Voice Test. The petitioner secured good marks in the written test but he was awarded poor marks in the viva examination due to which he didn’t clarify the admission test. The viva test conducted of the petitioner was of 2 to 3 minutes in which questions related to parenting and residence were asked. No formal question pertaining to the subject was asked to the petitioner. The petitioner found that there were few students who secured vey less marks in the written test but got selected for the admission in the college merely because they obtained high marks in the viva voice test. The petitioner aggrieved by the selection procedure of candidates in the Regional Engineering College filed a writ petitioner under Article 32 of the Constitution claiming that he was denied Right to Equality and the selection procedure was arbitrary as the selection criteria was relied on viva voice examination and by holding viva voice test lasting of only 2 or 3 minutes and asking questions which had no significance in changing the intellect of the candidate.
1. Choose best available option:
A. Writ petition is maintainable against the college because college is an instrumentality of state and selection procedure is violative of Article 14.
B. Writ petition is not maintainable against the college because college is not an instrumentality of state and selection procedure is not violative of Article 14.
C. Writ petition is not maintainable against the college because college is not an instrumentality of state but selection procedure is violative of Article 14.
D. Writ petition maintainable under article 226 only but the selection procedure is violative of Article 14.
Writ petition can be filed for the arbitrary selection procedure only.
A
On 11th November, 1970 at around 10:00 pm deceased Ranjit and his brother Samir were sitting outside their house and suddenly 3 police vehicles having 15-20 officers stopped in front of their house and rushed towards them. Both of them started running towards their house and the police officers were chasing them, having revolvers in their hands. Bibhuti Chakraborty made a shot from point blank range on Ranjit and other officers were also constantly firing on both of them which injured Ranjit and were able to catch both of them. They were dragged and dumped into the car. Ranjit and Samir both died before any medical assistance could be provided to them as they were injured due to the tussle at their house. Thereafter, Benoy brother of deceased was taken into custody, but was released on the bail. So, aggrieved by the decision of the police officers he filed a complaint in the court and the trial was initiated against them in the Sessions Court of Calcutta. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate initiated proceedings against respondents and convicted them for the offence under Sec 302 read with Sec 34 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C) and sentenced them to life imprisonment. An appeal was filed by the respondents in the High Court of Calcutta against the conviction order as passed by the subordinate court. The Honorable Court acquitted the appellants on the ground that police was on patrol duty and orders were there from Deputy Commissioner for open fire and thus actions of the convicts were totally justified. The court set aside the orders of trial court and acquitted the appellants for the case being. Aggrieved by the decision, the Special Leave Petition is filed by the State of West Bengal against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Calcutta dated 1st August, 1980.
1. Choose best available option:
A. SC will uphold the decision of trial court and convict them under Sec 302 and 34.
B. SC will uphold the decision of High Court and acquit all the accused
C. As the order to open the fire was given by superior authorities of police officers, so they cannot be charged for murder and hence SC will charge them for GH only.
D. As per the facts of case it is clearly established that deceased didn’t open fire on police party, it was police party who open the fire first without any apprehension of fear and death so the SC will uphold the decision of trial court and convict them under Sec. 302 and 34 of IPC, because this is not justified act.
B
A Hyena, wild animal was moving in the villages and causing injuries and deaths to small children. The people frightened with it. They complained to the authorities. The Government deputed certain officers. While they were wandering in the forests in search of Hyena, they saw a moving animal behind the bushes. It was a rainy day and the vision was not clear. The officers thought that it was the Hyena. It was common that no people would be moving in that area and in particularly in that rainy time. The accused, one of the officers, fired at the moving object. The result was that the death of a human being.
5. Choose best available option:
A. He will be convicted for death by Rash and Negligent Act.
B. He will be Convicted for Culpable homicide not amount to murder.
C. He is having absolute immunity of mistake of fact and working under good faith and will not be convicted.
D. It was just an accident and he will not be charged for the same and Court will acquit him accordingly.
E. Although he was working under the order of the authorities but the element of good faith was missing as other officers didn’t fire on that moving object. So, he will be liable for the CH not amount to murder
D
The defendants (the Board) agreed with certain landowners adjoining a stream to improve the banks of the stream and to maintain them in good condition. The landlords on their part paid proportionate costs. Subsequently one of the landlords sold his land to the first plaintiff and he to the second plaintiff. There was negligence on the part of the Board in maintaining the banks, which burst and the land was flooded. Both the plaintiffs were strangers to the agreement with the Board. 5. Choose Correct option in the light of doctrine of privity of contract: A. Plaintiffs can sue the board. B. Plaintiffs cannot sue the Board. C. Only original landlord (who sold the land to plaintiff) can sue the board on the behalf of plaintiffs (beneficiary rule) D. Both the Plaintiffs and Original landlord (all three) can sue the board E. According to doctrine of privity of contract no one is in the capacity to sue the board, as original owner lost his right after selling the land to plaintiffs and Board didn’t contract with the plaintiffs.
A
State Bank of Patiala, subsidiary of State Bank of India, issued a circular No. PER/VRS/48 dated 20th January 2001 publishing their Voluntary Retirement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SBPVRS’) drawn up in the light of the guidelines issued by the Indian Bank Association. The object of the SBPVRS inter alia was to downsize the existing strength of the employees and to increase profitability. The scheme was to open on February 15, 2001 and it was to close on 1st March, 2001 (inclusive of both days). The applications under the SBPVRS were to be accepted during the period when the scheme was to remain open between 15th February 2001 to 1st March 2001. The applications for Voluntary Retirement under the SBPVRS will be accepted during this period only. No voluntary retirement shall be deemed to have come into effect unless the decision of the Competent Authority has been communicated in writing, which will be convened within a maximum period of two months after the date of closure of receipt of applications i.e., 01.03.2001. The application once made cannot be withdrawn and the same will be treated as irrevocable. While making application, the employee will be required to declare the name of nominee, to whom the payment may be made in the event of death of an VRS opted after the competent authority has accepted his VRS application but before payment has been affected. To complete the chronology of events, respondents herein applied under the SBPVRS between 15th February 2001 and 1st March 2001. Respondent No.1 withdrew his application for voluntary retirement on 3/5th March, 2001. Similarly, respondent No. 2 withdrew his application for voluntary retirement on 2nd March 2001. Respondent No. 3 withdrew his application for voluntary retirement on 5th March, 2001. However, on 3rd April, 2001, the bank refused permission to the said respondents to withdraw from the scheme since their withdrawal was made after the date of the closure of the scheme on 1st March, 2001.
1. Choose best available option:
A. Employee can withdraw their application
B. Employee cannot withdraw their application
C. Depends on the discretion of the court
D. State Bank of India having statutory authority, so employee cannot withdraw their application.
E. It is well versed by the facts of the case that it was already informed by the bank that the once the application for VRS made cannot revoked after prescribed date, it was a clear communication of facts between the parties and their implied conduct showed that they agreed to this condition of the bank. So, there is no ground to challenge the decision of bank and court will reject the claim of employees.
A
An official of the appellant/defendant company, furnished information in the presence of some others those certain dealers were going to be employed by the I.B.P., one such being a dealer at a particular spot and encouraged the plaintiff/respondent that he being a local, a local man had better prospects for the job and satisfied the criteria laid down by the company for its illegibility. Relying on the information that particular dealer done all the required arrangement in pursuant of that particular offer and his implied conduct showed that he accepted the offer. But later on company didn’t employed that dealer. He filed suit against the company.
2. Choose best available option:
A. Company is liable for breach of contract and has to pay damages to dealer
B. Company is not liable for breach of contract and will not pay damages
C. Official of the company is liable
D. Information furnished by official is amount to invitation to offer, hence no contract, so no breach of contract and company is not liable.
E. There is not contract but court will award damages to that dealer as he made some arrangements in pursuant of the offer he accepted.
B
Mr and Mrs Merritt married in 1941. They held their matrimonial home in joint names. In 1966 Mr Merritt left the family home to live with another woman as he grows the love with that woman. Mr Merritt agreed to pay Mrs Merritt £40 per month. At Mrs Merritt’s request, he signed a document confirming that when she had repaid the balance on the mortgage, he would transfer the matrimonial home into her sole name. Mrs Merritt paid off the mortgage and successfully acquired a declaration that the house belonged to her. Mr Merritt appealed. Mr Merritt contended the agreement was a domestic arrangement between husband and wife and there was no intention to create legal relations and, as such, there was no enforceable contract. He also argued the purported contract was insufficiently certain to be enforceable by the court, and that Mrs Merritt had failed to provide consideration for his promise.
3. Choose best available option:
A. Mr. Merritt appeal will be successful as there was no intention to create legal relationship between the parties.
B. Mr. Merritt appeal will be successful as there was not sufficient consideration on the part of Mrs Merritt.
C. Mr. Merritt appeal will be successful as it was a domestic agreement between husband and wife with other flaws like intention to create legal relationship and insufficient consideration, that amounts to no agreement in eye of law.
D. Mr. Merritt appeal will be not be successful as he left his wife and grow love with other women (dill diya galla)
E. Mr. Merritt appeal will be not be successful as Ms. Merritt’s claim possess all essential requirements.
E
Consider the following statements regarding Fundamental Duties:
A. A person should respect the fundamental rights and duties equally because in any case, if the court comes to know that a person who wants his/her rights to be enforced is careless about his/her duties then the court will not be lenient in his/her case.
B. Any ambiguous statute can be interpreted with the help of fundamental duties.
C. The court can consider the law reasonable if it gives effect to any of the fundamental duties. In this way, the court can save such law from being declared as unconstitutional.
D. One can be punished on violation of certain fundamental duties. Being non justiciable they are justiciable otherwise E. Fundamental Duties can override Fundamental Rights.
4. Choose best available option: A. All Statements are wrong B. All statements are correct C. Only A is Correct D. Only A and B is Correct E. Only A B and D are Correct
B
Consider the following statements regarding as principle of sovereign immunity of the State for the acts of its servants.
A. The State is not liable for torts committed by its employees within the scope of their employment, if the tort is committed in connection with the exercise of sovereign functions of the State and the mere fact that a tort is committed by a member of the defense forces does not make the activity a sovereign one.
B. The State is liable for torts committed by its employees within the scope of their employment, if the tort was committed in connection with the exercise of the non-sovereign functions of the State.
C. Welfare activities of the government are not regarded as ‘sovereign functions’ for this purpose nor are routine activities, such as maintenance of vehicles of officers of the government.
D. A ‘service’ (facility) provided to a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not a ‘sovereign’ function. Running of a hospital is also not a sovereign function.
5. Choose Correct option:
A. Only A B and C are Correct
B. Only A and B are Correct
C. Only A B and D are Correct
D. Only A Correct
E. All are correct
E
Since Criminal Intention is the basis of criminal liability, an inebriated person, is in the same state of mental condition as an insane person. Such state of mind has been termed dementia affectatia – a form of lunacy in which the function of the mind is temporarily suspended.
Consider the following statement in the light of above statement:
A. Above statement refers to Involuntary intoxication.
B. The justification for such a provision is based on the contention that the accused had not contributed himself towards his drunkenness and which he is not likely to be repeated as in the case of voluntary act.
C. It is said that one who sins when drunk, should be punished when he is sober.
D. But if a man is forced to drunkenness through trick, fraud or ignorance, without the accused’s knowledge or against his will, the act is not voluntary act and so he is excused from liability.
Choose the Correct option:
A. A and C are Correct
B. B, C and D are Correct
C. D, A and B are Correct
D. All are correct
C
There was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased and the accused whipped out a knife and stabbed the accused on the chest near the shoulder. The stab injury was not on a vital part of the chest, but since the knife cut the artery inside, it resulted in death. Accused would be liable for…….
Choose best available option:
A. Murder
B. Culpable homicide not amounts to murder
C. Death by Rash and Negligent Act
D. Grievous Hurt
B
The plaintiff, an Abkari Contractor, who was in default on the payment of Toddy Welfare and was ineligible to participate in the auction, and to take any contract in his name. He agreed with the defendant that the defendant should take some shops at the auction and transfer some of these shops to the plaintiff. The plaintiff paid some consideration to the defendant for the same. The defendant having failed to perform his part of the agreement, the plaintiff claimed back the consideration paid by him to the defendant.
Choose best available option:
A. Contract is Valid and made by free consent of parties, hence defendant has to paid back the consideration to plaintiff.
B. Contract is Void because no sufficient consideration as he has to participate himself in auction.
C. Contract is void ab initio and defendant is not liable for breach of contract
D. Contract is Void ab initio but as per law the defendant is liable for breach of contract
E. As per basic principles of law, there is valid contract between plaintiff and defendant because when plaintiff was ineligible to participate in auction and he didn’t participate in the same and allow defendant to participate in auction and later on they had valid and mutual contract to transfer the shops according to their free consent. So, in this whole transaction there are two valid contracts. First one is that defendant applied for the auction and he got the same, and second one is when defendant has to transfer his ownership to plaintiff. So, both contracts are valid and free from any technical issue.
C
The defendant owed a sum of money under a promissory note to his father. The defendant perpetually, day and night, complained to his father that he had not been treated equally with other children in the distribution of his property. Thereupon the father promised to discharge him from all liability in respect of the loan and the note, provided he would stop complaining, which the defendant accordingly did. The question was whether the defendant’s promise to cease his complaints was a sufficient consideration to sustain his father’s promise?
Choose best available answer:
A. Yes
B. May be, depends on party
C. Depends on the party relationships
D. It would be ridiculous to suppose that such promises could be binding. In reality there was no consideration whatever.” “A contract founded upon such an illusory consideration appears to be as invalid as a promise by a father made in consideration that his son would not bore him”
E. This case falls under the doctrine of ultimate judicial absolute immunity, according to which such exceptional cases on consideration can only be decided by the discretion of the court and equity.
D
The Plaintiff and defendant, who married under Mohammedan law, agreed before marriage that the defendant (wife) would be allowed to live with her parents after the marriage. The wife went to her parents and refused to come back to her husband (Plaintiff). He filed the suit for restitution of conjugal rights. Her defence was that she was permitted by the agreement made before marriage, to live apart and that husband had not paid dower amounting to rupees 1000. It is to be noted here that In Islamic law marriage is a civil contract between parties which allows them mutually to agree upon the terms and conditions of their future together. Like any other contract, the free consent of the parties to the agreement to marry is essential.
Choose best available option:
A. Court will allow her to live with her parents.
B. Court will ask her to come back to her husband.
C. Court will allow them to end the marriage if they don’t want to live together.
D. Court will not validate the agreement which they had before marriage and order for restitution of conjugal rights.
E. It is to be noted here that as marriage is civil contract in Islamic law and parties had the contract with free consent, so court will validate the agreement and ask them if they don’t want to continue the marriage then they can go for separation through legal process(divorce).
D
A, was a specialized and famous ship manufacture and he was famous for his best designs and manufacturing quality of ships and on various occasions he also received awards and recognitions for the same. One day Mr. B contacted him and gave an order to build a ship for fishing in the sea. B gave specification for the ship and Mr. A build the ship as per given specifications. When Mr. B put it in use and the ship turned unfit for fishing in the sea. Mr. B sued Mr. A for the damages.
Choose best available option:
A. It’s a goodwill of Mr. A, which motivated Mr. B to contract with him for ship manufacturing and Mr. A was unable to deliver the required ship because Mr. B already give some specifications and direction to Mr. A for ship manufacturing and Mr. A failed. Hence, he is liable to pay damages to Mr. B
B. It is true that Mr. B was attracted to award winning performances and recognition of Mr. A in ship manufacturing but it was his duty to keep regular or routine checks on his customized ship building process, so that any fault can be avoid during the manufacturing process itself and Mr. B failed to do that. Hence, he is not liable for damages.
C. As Mr. A was an experienced ship manufacturer so it was his duty to tell Mr. B regarding the defects in specifications given by Mr. B but Mr. A concealed them. It was breach of duty to take care, hence Mr. Ais liable to pay damages to Mr. B
D. Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstances of the case are such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty
of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence, is, in itself, equivalent to speech. Hence Mr. Ais liable to pay damages to Mr. B.
E. This contract is void ab intio between Mr. A and Mr. B as there is no consensus ad idem between the parties. Because the ship demanded and ship received was two different things.
B
In this case Principal authorized his agent by power of attorney to sell one of his properties only (item number 1). The powers of attorney were tampered and interpolated to include another property (Item No. 2) by agent and subsequently sold off by the agent to third party. Later on, Principal sued third party for the recovery of second property (Item No. 2).
Choose best available option:
A. Tempering the power of attorney was illegal on behalf of agent and out of the course of employment as he was not authorized to sell second property. Hence principal will recover his second property.
B. Agent was authorized to sold off the item no. 1 and not item number 2 and he played the fraud with both his principal and third party so agent is liable for the fraud and principal will not be able to recover the item number 2 from third party.
C. In this case the first contract of item number 1 is valid and executable as it has good consideration and agent was having the proper authority from the principal but the second contract of item number 2 is beyond the powers of agent and out of the course of employment of agent and he also acted fraudulently,
so court will validate the first contract and second contract will be void ab initio and principal will recover his property.
D. The whole transaction is void ab intio as agent acted out of his course of employment and tempered and interpolated the power of attorney. So, court will declare the whole transaction null and void.
B
The plaintiff engaged the defendant estate agents to sell a property, instructing them to market it at 6,500 pounds but that he would accept 6,000 pounds. The plaintiff accepted an offer of 6,150 pounds ‘subject to contract’. Before exchange, another potential buyer offered 6,750 pounds. Instead of communicating that offer to their principal, the agents went to the original offeror, suggesting he could sell on and make a profit. They did so in good faith, believing that they had already fulfilled their duty to their principal. Later on Principal came to know about this fact and sued the agent for the loss suffered by him:
Choose best available option:
A. Principal received more than what he asked for. So no damages.
B. In this case Principal had a contract with an agent to sold his property on prescribed amount and the agent did the same and the act of the agent to sold the property later via original offeror to make profit is all together a different contract. So, agent cannot be mad liable. Moreover, it is his job to sell and purchase the property being an agent. So, no damages.
C. Principal will get the damages as agent didn’t fulfill his duty properly and conceal the facts from principal.
D. By the implied and express conduct of principle it is clearly visible that he was ready to sell the property in 6000 pound and he instructed the agent to market the property for 6500 pounds so he can get at least 6000 pounds by negotiations. But agent in good faith and by best of his skill arranged a buyer who offered 6150 pounds for the said property. So, agent full fill his duty accordingly and he is not liable to pay the damages to principal.
So, the principal suit will be rejected.
C
The Plaintiff was an employee in the London Passenger Transport Board. The Board gave a free pass to plaintiff to travel free of charge on its omnibus subject to a condition that the Board or its servant would not be liable for any injury caused during the travel. Due to the Negligence of the defendant, a bus driver of the Board, the Plaintiff suffered injuries. Since he could not hold the Board liable in view of the exemption clause the plaintiff brought an action against the defendant personally recover the damages.
Choose best available option:
A. Plaintiff will not get any damages as it was already mentioned in the exemption clause the board or his servant will not be liable for any injury.
B. Plaintiff will not get damages as after deducting the contributory negligence as after agreeing to exemption clause he choose to travel in the omnibus.
C. Volenti non fit injuria will applicable here. No damages.
D. There is no enough consideration to create a liability as he was travelling free of cost.
E. Defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff because being not a party to the contract the exemption clause did not cover his liability.
E
Both the Plaintiff and defendant went to horse race in Madras. They put an equal sum of the money (total 400 Rs.) on the same horse in the name of the defendant. The horse won the race. The defendant collected the winnings but did not pay the half share of the plaintiff.
Plaintiff sued the defendant.
Choose best available option:
A. Plaintiff will not get half amount of winnings.
B. Plaintiff will not get half amount of winnings.
C. Wagering agreement, expressly declared void by sec 30.
D. This suit is not maintainable in the court of law.
C
The Sultan of Johore residing in England as a private person, made a
promise of marriage to young women. Later he returned to native
state breaking his promise. She filed a suit for enforcing the promise.
Choose best available option:
A. When one visit to foreign country, he or she by their implied
conduct submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the law of that
country. So, in this case the lady can sue the Sultan for marriage
B. She cannot sue the Sultan for the enforcement of his promise.
C. Sultan ha to marry her or pay the compensation to lady for
breach of contract.
D. Sultan was residing in capacity of private person not as sultan
and he also promised her in his private capacity so he is bound
by promise.
E. As Sultan is a foreign national the court can not compel him to
fulfill his promise but the court will direct him to pay the
damages to lady for the breach of contract.
b
An unruly mob was heading toward Police and destroying the public
property. It was a very aggressive mob and destroying every
property, vehicles, shops whatever comes in its way. The mob
including person of every age from child to old age persons. People
who were standing on the roofs of their houses were also hooting
and shouting like anything. Police fired in the air to disperse the
mob. Plaintiffs who were standing on the roof of their houses
sustained injuries from bullets fired in the air. They sued the Police
for damages.
Choose best available option:
A. Sovereign immunity to Police as it is sovereign function to
maintain the law and order in the state.
B. Police officer who fired the bullet will be liable
C. State will be liable and pay the damages.
D. No damages as being a prudent man the persons standing on
their roof know the fact that police are firing to control the mob
so they can leave the palace.
E. Contributory negligence principle will apply here and damages
will be awarded accordingly.
c
. Who has been recently appointed the new Chairman of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (Irdai)?
a. Mukesh Narain
b. Mahesh Jain
c. Deepak Gupta
d. Debasish Pand
d
